Posted by Neredbojias on 09/26/53 11:26

With neither quill nor qualm, Ed Jay quothed:

> >True, it's a generalization. You may be the next Newton for all I know.
> >But on the whole, women as a group are less adept at math than men as a
> >group. This is probably because they have less interest in it when they
> >are young, daydreaming about boys instead.
>
> Harvard University recently had something to say about this.
> <http://www.aes-intl.com/dl2/harvardmath.jpg>

He he. However, I fear that example is an equation for animosity from
the opposite sex. Your prime numbers will probably be in stasis for at
least a googolplex of inordinately lengthy temporal subdivisions during
which squaring the root may be your only rational equalizer.

> >> > Hmm, I don't think I've ever heard it said that a woman thinks with
> >> > her you-know, but now that you mention it, it's a pretty fair
> >> > assumption.
> >>
> >> I was referring to men, not women. But now that you mention it, we
> >> probably do sometimes. Usually we let our reasonable thinking prevail
> >> though.
> >
> >Well that's debatable but I'll admit there's likely to be large
> >differences between separate individuals in each of the sexes.
> >
> So very true. In fact, some women take both sides of the discussion the
> two of you are involved in. My take is that as long as the women remain
> split, the men will always be on top.

Well, um, I suspect that women will indeed remain split for many eons to
come.

--
Neredbojias
Contrary to popular belief, it is believable.

[Back to original message]